I’m in oneonta ny (very sweet little town – pee wee herman grew up here!) but today I’m gonna try and get to erie… Catskills were sort of where I turned for home cause new job wants me in Chicago for meeting next week. Kinda bummed about that I’d been hoping to have january to make my way back. But… when I started this trip i assumed I’d be coming back to an increasingly robust romney economy.

I wonder if we’ll learn that the feds can force people to get married, as long as the law contains a taxing provision. Maybe John Roberts can extract a federal taxing provision interpretation from the state marriage license fee. Maybe unicorns really do exist.

Can’t really see how the same court that just said “if the government wants to tax everyone for breathing, while labeling it a ‘fine’, it’s none of our business,” is going to now tell the California Supreme Court how to correctly interpret their state constitution.

I mean, I guess they could point out how idiotic it was for the CA Supremes to include in their written opinion over 100 references to a “constitutional right to marry” that does not exist, as well as the further blind spot of even if it did exist, the people voted to AMEND their constitution.

He’s the one who often uses “gay” in a pejorative way, even though he also embraces the fundamental tenet of GLBT activism. Such cognitive dissonance must trigger feelings of guilt, which then leads the sufferer to want government to soothe those pangs of guilt. A variation of someone like Warren Buffett, with all his trillions of bucks, who promotes the idea that taxes need to be raised on the wealthy — to make society more loving, equitable and humane — but whose own Berkshire Hathaway reportedly owes the IRS millions and millions of dollars.

Or a version of the Obamas, extolling the virtues and wonders of public schools, yet who send their own precious daughters to exclusive academies or parochial schools.

I can assure you, I’ve never been afraid of a mass produced baked good in my life.

But the one in question will be harder to find…

Hostess Brands Inc. announced that the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York today approved its emergency interim motion for the orderly wind down of its business and sale of its assets.

In addition to dozens of baking and distribution facilities around the country, Hostess Brands will sell its popular brands, including Hostess®, Drakes® and Dolly Madison®, which make iconic cake products such as Twinkies®, CupCakes, Ding Dongs®, Ho Ho’s®, Sno Balls® and Donettes®. Bread brands to be sold include Wonder®, Nature’s Pride ®, Merita®, Home Pride®, Butternut®, and Beefsteak®, among others.

No, I haven’t read the book which I think actually comes out next week, nor the original paper in the Harvard Law Review (which may be available?), nor any of the apparent back and forth on it among differing views.
I have only heard him briefly on radio being interviewed but I know he has a great reputation among conservatives. At one time, at least, he must have had the respect of some libs as he occupies the named chair at Princeton that Woodrow Wilson once held.

The last I had heard previously about Hostess was that workers were still on the picket line here in philly, convinced that the “attempted” bankruptcy was just a ploy in bargaining with the unions and the bankruptcy judge wasn’t going to “let them get away with it”.

As Kenny Rogers said, you need to know when to hold and when to fold, and I guess at least one union boss got a schoolin’, along with a lot of workers that listened to him/her.

You make an excellent point about how the state Constitution was legally amended, thereby, by definition, making it henceforth Constitutional in the state of California.

It reminds me of all those suckers (Wesley Snipes) who are shown the text of the original Federal Constitution, and then get duped into believing the federal income tax is unconstitutional….totally ignoring the fact that an amendment was made in 1913, enabling a federal income tax. So guess what, Mr. Snipes…it’s been constitutional since 1913.

In effect, the California Supreme Court said “in this instance, you cannot change the constitution because the change you want to make violates the existing constitution”. In other words, even though the CA constitution allows for amendment by means of a popular vote, the court has put itself in the position of arbiter of what amendments will and will not be allowed — completely superseding the democratic process.
If it weren’t for the subject matter of the particular amendment at hand, liberals would & should be outraged at this judicial hijacking of “one man, one vote”.

I wonder if the SC will find compelling the 9th Circuit’s argument that Prop 8 revoked a fundamental right without sufficient reason. After all the CA Supremes did not establish this right until after the proposition (to remove their power to do so) was on the ballot.

Even the CA Supreme Court didn’t buy that argument, and they got asked twice, once before the election (to block the proposition) and once by the 9th Circuit during the federal appeal.

Accordingly, we conclude that each of the state constitutional challenges to Proposition 8 advanced by petitioners and the Attorney General lacks merit. Having been approved by a majority of the voters at the November 4, 2008 election, the initiative measure lawfully amends the California Constitution to include the new provision as article I, section 7.5.

In this case they specifically rejected the idea that the prohibition (on the use of the word “marriage”) constituted the abrogation of a significant right.

DOMA, on the other hand, may face a tougher test as it forbids the federal government from recognizing marriages that the couple’s State accepts. Would a similar law forbidding the feds from recognizing common-law marriages pass muster?

I know that many conservatives, and many readers and commenters here and on other conservative blogs, are still very angry at Chief Justice John Roberts for his decision in the Obamacare case.

I disagreed with his rationale and decision in that case, but I understand what he thought (mistakenly) he was trying to do with it: He was being driven not by immediate politics, but rather by an overzealous and misguided application of some very conservative and valuable judicial “rules of decision” — that is, rules which supposedly tell judges how to restrain themselves to avoid interfering in the provinces of the two overtly political branches of our tripartite Republic. His fidelity to those rules effectively turned him into using all his own legal acumen — which friend or foe ought admit is considerable — to construct a different and arguably better argument for upholding the statute than anything the Obama Administration or amici had argued. He found a way to “lawyer the Court out of the conflict,” one might say.

But I do not see that happening very often in the future.

And in particular, I see the granting of certiorari — that is, the SCOTUS’ discretionary decision to agree to hear appeals from the lower appellate courts, instead of leaving their judgments intact — in these two extremely controversial and topical and politically important cases as being an important trend marker.

Under the traditional “Rule of Four” (and with the current nine-justice size of the SCOTUS, a detail not fixed by the Constitution but by the Judiciary Act and thus subject to political change), it takes four votes to grant a petition for certiorari in order for the SCOTUS to take up an appeal and hear it.

But assuming all nine members’ participation, it takes five members’ joinder for a precedent-setting majority opinion. And that differential is key.

One of the most subtle but important functions of the Supreme Court is in deciding not only what cases and issues to take up, but when to do so. And some of the (metaphorical) struggle between the conservative and liberal wings of the SCOTUS plays out through exactly these decisions on cert petitions.

The liberal wing is likely to have wanted to leave in place the decisions of the lower circuit courts that reach their preferred outcome on these issues. They’d rather see the Ninth Circuit’s ruling striking down Prop 8 remain place, for example, than see it run the risk of Prop 8 being reinstated by a presumed conservative coalition of Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy, and Alito.

So my inference from these grants of certiorari is that said five-justice presumed conservative coalition is indeed flexing its judicial muscles — which is a strange metaphor, but which in this situation means “they’re doing their jobs under the Constitution.”

For the rest of his life (subject only to impeachment) for so long as he cares to serve, John Roberts will be the procedural leader of the SCOTUS — that’s a consequence of the structure and traditions for operation of the Court. But he’s also still the intellectual center of gravity of the conservative wing of the Court.

I may be guilty of looking too desperately for a ray of hope in contemplating the next four years. But this seems to me to be one.

The cert grants suggest that at least four members of the conservative wing (if you define it to include Kennedy, which you ought to despite his frequent defections) believe they are likely to get five votes, and hence a precedent-setting majority opinion, after briefing and argument when the case is finally decided.

If they already knew or were relatively sure that Kennedy was going to defect, they might not vote to grant cert — and they would do that to prevent the liberal wing plus Kennedy from setting a SCOTUS-level precedent. (It’s better, from a conservative point of view, to have the Ninth Circuit’s sweeping precedents on same-sex marriage and equal protection to apply only there than to be made nationwide by a SCOTUS affirmation of the Ninth Circuit’s judgment.)

I’m *very* unhappy with the request that the attorneys brief and argue the question of whether Hollingsworth had standing to bring the appeal.

The California Supreme Court got it right, I think, when it said that the official sponsors of the initiative were acting on behalf of the state, to vindicate the state’s interest, when they appealed an adverse court decision regarding an initiative and the AG had declined to do so.

This is an important principle for the law of initiatives, and I’d rather not see the Supreme Court say that the official proponents don’t have standing in such cases. (Even if that means that Hollingsworth wins on the merits – the effect on the way initiatives works is more important, IMO, than whether prop 8 stands).

Beldar – I also think as a tactical matter that both orders have a request to brief + argue standing because whichever group didn’t want to grant cert wants standing available as an option to make the cases go away if they’re losing.

I wonder if Roberts will stick to his non-interference in political process thingy.

That would actually be good, if I’m not mistaking it all from a lay person’s POV. The smartest thing I heard is that Ginzburg said before she was appointed that they should not have ruled on Roe v. Wade because they jumped ahead of the culture, which would have solved the question eventually.

I’m *very* unhappy with the request that the attorneys brief and argue the question of whether Hollingsworth had standing to bring the appeal.

Should they want to establish that as a precedent, wouldn’t they have to ask for briefs? I agree that allowing the State to lose initiative cases by default vitiates the power of the initiative to force state actions. Prop 13 would never have stood given this kind of BS. Matter of fact, there is a good argument that ONLY the proponents have automatic standing, since the State may well have a conflict of interest but the proponents never do.

The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. In addition to the question presented by the petition, the parties are directed to brief and argue the following question: Whether petitioners have standing under Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution in this case.

—-

Since neither Hollingsworth nor Perry had asked for that issue to be raised on appeal, this was a sua sponte request from the court, which is very odd, and somewhat disturrbing.

Since neither Hollingsworth nor Perry had asked for that issue to be raised on appeal, this was a sua sponte request from the court, which is very odd, and somewhat disturbing.

Yes, but why do you assume they intend to find the proponents have no standing? They could just as well find that the proponents always have standing, and be annoyed at the district court’s attempt to do away with the appeal for “lack of conflict.”

Also, you misread my comment. I assume that the court has a reason to look at this, and therefore is asking for briefs. It may also pertain to the Obama administration’s behavior wrt DOMA. If the Courts can be finessed by the executive’s failure to defend laws, and no surrogates are permitted then the power of the judicial branch is diminished. I see no reason why any judge would want that.

nk, but if you eliminate all the opposing parties due to some cramped idea of standing (one that the original jurisdiction does not use), and the people’s agents are allowed to shirk their duty, you rig the case and disempower the judiciary.

Well, yes, Kevin. The federal judiciary is mostly a product of the legislature and the executive. Its jurisdiction is up to Congress. The Congress can reduce or increase the size of the federal courts including the Supreme Court.

The Congress can refuse to fund all the auxiliary employees of the Supreme Court, and the rent on the Supreme Court building.

I would like to see the “justices” scratching their 188-page “opinions” on a DC sidewalk.

Well, Wickard only affirmed an act of Congress, so I fail to see your point. It’s not like they enacted something themselves (at least not back then). And they stopped some truly terrible FDR ideas, like the NIRA which established government sanctioned monopolies and cartels and put the USA’s stamp of approval on favored goods. “Only shop where you see the Blue Eagle.”

Kevin M – I assume they want the briefing to be able to do away with standing because the issue of standing was uncontested in this level appeal. That is to say: neither Hollingsworth nor Perry contested the 9th circuit’s finding that standing existed, so there was no longer an active controversy. If the Supreme Court thinks there might be a controversy, but both of the parties to the suit don’t, then it seems to me that it’s more likely that the members of the Supreme Court who think there’s a controversy disagree with the lower court on the issue.

Plus, I think it’s actually there for tactical reasons to provide the losing side a way to cobble together five votes to punt the issue.

As an aside, i’m wondering how the Congress’ assertion that it has the power to defend a law when the executive branch doesn’t (in this case) and it’s assertion that it has the power to appoint a prosecutor to investigate members of the executive branch when they don’t trust the executive branch to do so (via an independent prosecutor) are *constitutionally* different. It seems to me that a consistent philosophy regarding the workings of the seperation of powers would require that you view both the same way, but my political intuitions tell me that most people will say one is OK and the other isn’t.

Narciso, at 71: I agree with those who are criticizing King & Spalding for this. The system only works if lawyers are willing to work for unpopular clients; and if it became common for lawyers to dump an existing client under the circumstances like this, the ability of the system to provide representation to the unpopular would be gravely threatened.

I don’t like DOMA, obviously; and I don’t think the section under scrutiny in _Windsor_ is going to survive. But the opposite view is entitled to its day in court, and it’s NOT ok for King & Spalding to have taken the case and then reneged due to political pressure.

narciso – Related to NFIB v. Sebelius was a recent order by a Judge to allow a suit by the Archdiocese of New York and others against Sebelius over the contraception mandate to proceed. The government argued lack of standing, ripeness and a few other BS matters.

Unlike previous cases on the matter, the Judge connected all the dots, understood that final rules have been published in the federal register and that employers have to begin making plans for compliance or noncompliance with insurance carriers and had the following to say on page 34 of his opinion with respect to the government’s promise to fix its phony compromise prior to the expiration of the one year grace period announced earlier this year:

“Moreover, the First Amendment does not require citizens to accept assurances from the
government that, if the government later determines it has made a misstep, it will take
ameliorative action. There is no, “Trust us, changes are coming” clause in the Constitution. To
the contrary, the Bill of Rights itself, and the First Amendment in particular, reflect a degree of
skepticism towards governmental self-restraint and self-correction.”

Yes, I’ve noticed that, as with McCain/Feingold and the detainee case post Boumedienne, the courts have begun to ‘clawback’ the overreach, the damage is done, the Court didn’t want to take up Latif, because after Al Shehri and Bin Qumu, it would have
made the latter look ridiculous,

As an aside, i’m wondering how the Congress’ assertion that it has the power to defend a law when the executive branch doesn’t (in this case)

It doesn’t. But in cases where parties other than the plaintiff and defendant are affected, the courts have the power to appoint counsel to argue a point of view the court wishes to consider, or allow some other party to make arguments. That would be extraordinary, but more commonly they take “friend of the court” briefs. Their rules about standing only apply to the plaintiff.

and its assertion that it has the power to appoint a prosecutor to investigate members of the executive branch when they don’t trust the executive branch to do so (via an independent prosecutor) are *constitutionally* different.

Thee is no such power, but judges can appoint prosecutors, if authorized to do so by a law.
(Article 2, Section 2, near end of clause 2 – the words “or in the courts of law” )

The last I had heard previously about Hostess was that workers were still on the picket line here in philly, convinced that the “attempted” bankruptcy was just a ploy in bargaining with the unions and the bankruptcy judge wasn’t going to “let them get away with it”.

What I read (evidently originating with the baker’s union) was that the real problem was with the Teamsters Union. There was tremendous featherbedding/.The company had made a deal with the Teamsters Union but retained many work rules, like separate trucks for different products (that maybe originally were made by separate companies?)

The bakers’s union felt their wages were not higher than at competing companies – and they should not be asked to take a pay cut – everything that they were being asked to do was to help the Teamster’s Union, which had cut a good deal, earlier.

As Kenny Rogers said, you need to know when to hold and when to fold, and I guess at least one union boss got a schoolin’, along with a lot of workers that listened to him/her.

I remember that once upon a time Senator Clinton and others were adamant that DOMA was the law of the land and there would never be any need for a federal constitutional amendment to define marriage.
Just one way where the Left and Islamofacists are similar, lying for the sake of the cause is permitted and even encouraged-if it will work.

then it seems to me that it’s more likely that the members of the Supreme Court who think there’s a controversy disagree with the lower court on the issue.

It may also be that 4 liberal members said: “OK, if you insist we deal with this now, put standing on the table, too.”

I actually welcome this, as I would like to see the Court put paid to the idea that state (or federal) AGs can scuttle a law they dislike by forfeiting the case, while preventing interceders from claiming standing.

There have been three major b-slaps to America’s face this year. First, America has slipped to 3rd place at http://www.clickclickclick.com! Then, Auburn fires Gene Chizik and replaces him with the guy Gene ran off! (Well, that one is on Gene and not America.) And then, America b-slaps itself and re-elects the guy who openly plans to destroy the nation and the people who voted for him.

We can’t do anything about the last two, but we surely can rally and save America from plunging into 3rd world status at http://www.clickclickclick.com! Get to work, America!!!

85.I remember that once upon a time Senator Clinton and others were adamant that DOMA was the law of the land and there would never be any need for a federal constitutional amendment to define marriage.
Just one way where the Left and Islamofacists are similar, lying for the sake of the cause is permitted and even encouraged-if it will work.

Comment by MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 12/9/2012 @ 3:47 pm

You mean as, in “If you like your plan you can keep it?” (As Rep. Walsh found out, it’s very bad form to point out they’re lying for their cause.) As if anyone with detectable brain activity could possibly believe that about the health insurance they get from their employer, who can change plans anytime already.

It’s taken some years for me to get to this place but the Sate needs to be out of the marriage business.

Make it a state contract between parties A B C D E etc. no discrimination among any ne over 18. Tow men one woman? Three women one man? One man and another man? One woman and one man? It’s a state contract. Leave the marriage ceremony to the couples — groups church

I’m out of the marriage business. And welcome any and all con wanting adults to a partnership agreement

Sunny @90, the problem with that is that marriage isn’t a private matter. It is really the foundation of a society. Whatever the arrangement, it has a normative effect on society.

What happens when it stops having a normative effect then it ceases to be important. So, as we’ve seen in countries that go this route is that increasing number of people forgo it entirely.

This creates wards of the state. Marriage is the greatest anti-poverty program ever created. Which is why the liberals are attempting to water it down by redefining it. If they succeed, and they will have succeeded if marriage becomes so unimportant that government gets out of the marriage business, then we’ll have more single moms. The majority of which require at least some government assisatance to get by.

The Democrats knew exactly what they were doing when they created “The Life of Julia.”

Destroying marriage as an institution, and that’s what you’re suggesting, means creating armies of Julias requiring a cradle to grave welfare state. A single mom essentially trades perceived dependence on one man for actual dependence on government. That’s job security for Democrats.

Libertarians, and you seem to be one given that you are advocating a libertarian position, can’t seem to realize that their policies inevitably will lead to social changes that require larger, more intrusive government.

MD in Philly at 85: I don’t think there’s any evidence that Clinton was lying in the 90s when he said that. I think he honestly believed it at the time and has since come to change his mind on the issue.

I remember support for gay marriage being a fringe political position in the 1990s, something that it was hard to imagine ever being accepted on a widespread basis. The modern world, where *voters* are approving gay marriage and it’s an assumed default position for the Democratic party, was unimaginable to me then.

Honestly, there’s a degree to which it’s unimaginable to me now. There’s a reason why my google chat status was “WTF just happened?” for a week after the election.

aphrael,
I may still be wrong, but I was referring more to Hillary Clinton as senator in the years of 2002 and forward. I think it was in 2004 that there were a lot of ballot intiatives concerning gay marriage that got a lot of conservative voters out (including the “Amish for Bush” people in Ohio and PA). As I remember it, there were some conservatives in those years calling for an effort to protect the definition of marriage as one man and one woman with a constitutional amendment with the idea that “Let’s do this while we still can”, and the Left saying, “No, no. No need for anything that drastic (you extremists), you already have DOMA”. I found it hard then to think those folk were being honest. Anyone who remembers Roe v. Wade knows that short of a constitutional amendment any law dealing with public opinion on what moral standards are enforceable is subject to the whim of 5 out of 9 people in black robes. I think you know that I wish no ill will toward any individual gay/lesbian/bisexual/transvestite/confused person any more than I do towards any individual heterosexual person. I do think thousands of years of belief that “marriage” is between one man and one woman and is meant to be stable and long-lasting is a concept not to be abandoned, in spite of failures in practice. (Though I realize that some people do not think that is a logically or emotionally viable position, i.e., to disagree is to disapprove is to dislike is to hate).

Tangential Rant Warning:
While at least one of my sons thinks it is sort of silly, as of 2000 when I first became politically aware I decided I could never vote for anyone I knew was lying to my face. Prior to that, even with Clinton/Dole in 1996, I thought political debate was primarily about honest discussion over differing views of how to get shared values accomplished (we all want a liveable environment, we all want jobs, we all want people to have a decent existence, we just debate over exactly what those things look like and how to get there).

Maybe I was wrong and naive and it really wasn’t that way even back then, but sometime between the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal and 2002 or so the dems as a national presence gave up any pretense of being interested in anything other than having power and whatever demagogery or action necessary to get it. To some degree, whether Howard Dean and Nancy Pelosi really believe conservatives don’t care if children go to bed hungry and our grandchildren don’t have clean air to breath doesn’t make any difference. They are either lying or out of touch with reality, not a good choice. If you want to have an honest and fact based dicussion over what makes for the best economic situation for the poor or what is a reasonable environmental policy, fine, but that is not what any national dem argument has been based on for years, and the majority of the press is complicit and around half of the voting public either agrees or doesn’t know any better.

After watching some more “history” programs from Oliver Stone, America will learn that Joseph Stalin was really a good guy after all, and it was that mean fanatical fascist Harry Truman that was responsible for the Cold War and so much global mistrust (why did FDR pick a Republican for VP anyway?)
Imagine, Russians with Pravda will soon know more of the truth about Stalin than do Americans… but on second thought, perhaps that is nothing new, just ask any Ukrainian.

MD in Philly – perhaps this is a small point, but I think it’s an important one to this discussion.

DOMA has two seperate primary provisions:

* a provision which restates the rule that allows Texas to not recognize a gay marriage performed in NY.

* a provision which says that the federal government will not recognize a gay marriage performed in NY.

Only the SECOND of these is being discussed in *any* of the challenges before the court today. The case the court took involved a woman who sued after her wife died. Their marriage was recognized as valid by the state of NY … but the federal government hit her with a massive estate tax liability which she would not have been hit with if she’d been married to a man and her marriage was recognized as valid in the state of NY.

This is a very different circumstance than the situation of the person who moves to Texas and tries to get Texas to recognize her marriage. I don’t think the Texas-moving-person has a leg to stand on; the full faith and credit clause has _always_ been held to allow states to refuse to recognize acts by other states if those acts violate a strong public policy.

I don’t see any reason why that should change unless the supreme court reads gay marriage into the constitution. If there’s a strong public policy in Texas to not recognize a gay marriage, it isn’t required to by the full faith and credit clause. (Similarly, if there’s a strong public policy in NY to impose stringent rules on who can get a concealed carry permit, NY shouldn’t be required to recognize Texas’ concealed carry permits – they’re roughly the same issue).

I agree that the federal denial of a state-legal marriage is going to fall, and probably 9-0. It’s really unsupportable for the feds to all-of-a-sudden weigh in on marriages when they’ve left it to the states before now.

As for “getting the states out of marriage”, well, that just isn’t going to happen. But CHURCHES can certainly get out of the civil marriage business without so much as a phone call to their legislature. They just have to say that their ceremony of Holy Matrimony (closed to gays, sorry) is of a religious nature only, signifying a union before God, and that members wishing the state to recognize their marriage should go talk to the state about that.

I don’t know when, but there was a federal case that held that a divorce case could not be denied because the couple could not afford the filing fees. It could make marriage federal business, by way of access to the courts. Anybody remember the case?

Kevin M – i’m actually content for the next couple of decades with a regime where the feds recognize marriages if they’re valid in the state of domicile, and states don’t have to recognize each other’s marriages. I think that’s the constitutionally correct compromise position.

That won’t stop me from contributing to campaigns to get states to change their laws, of course.

I wonder if we’ll learn that the feds can force people to get married, as long as the law contains a taxing provision. Maybe John Roberts can extract a federal taxing provision interpretation from the state marriage license fee.

Sigh. Once again, the whole point of Roberts’s 0bamacare decision was that the feds can not force people to do things; they can create a tax incentive, so long as one remains free not to do as the feds want. And not just free in theory, but also in practise, i.e. the cost is not prohibitive. So your question boils down to whether the feds can offer a tax deduction for married people (and people in same-sex civil unions) in order to encourage marriage (and civil-unionship). And the answer, of course, is yes, they certainly can.

(Similarly, if there’s a strong public policy in NY to impose stringent rules on who can get a concealed carry permit, NY shouldn’t be required to recognize Texas’ concealed carry permits – they’re roughly the same issue).

Comment by aphrael (4a1ba8) — 12/10/2012 @ 10:08 am

No they are not.

Marriage is a special case. It makes the bearing of arms look like nothing.

We’ll see. I stick with my prediction that it will be sent to the states 9-0. DOMA might be narrowed.

Here we are again, trying to get out from under the rain of humanist fire and brimstone all courtesy of those evil knuckledragging so-cons.

Government subsidation of marriage and procreation, their fault. Exclusion of inheritance rights to homosexuals, their fault.
Focus on exorbitantly expensive social issues to the detriment of balance budgets, their fault.

Fostering litigation in a society beset by an overabundance of lawyers, their fault.

Who will rid us of this plague and yet keep their votes in our pocket?

I actually welcome this, as I would like to see the Court put paid to the idea that state (or federal) AGs can scuttle a law they dislike by forfeiting the case, while preventing interceders from claiming standing.

I’d like to see a similar action with regard to consent decrees. Just as no congress can bind its successors (an unwritten constitutional principle that the USA inherited from the UK), no government should be able to bind its successors to provisions not required by any law, by means of arranging with its allies to be sued and then consenting to whatever it wants. Subsequent governments should be entitled to inform the court that they withdraw their consent and if the plaintiff still thinks it has a case they are ready to litigate the issue.

While one could separate “marriage” as a religious practice from governmental regulation, the argument can be made that societies have recognized marriage as a commitment between one man and one woman whether explicitly religious or not. I do not know the details of it, but apparently in American history it was decided that one man and one woman was the legal definition of marriage and polygamy was decided to be unacceptable. I’m guessing that Catholics, Protestants, Jews, and non-religious at the time all agreed that marriage had a definition of one man and one woman. If anything, I think polygamy has more of a historic precedent but few are advocating we accept that in the US.

What gives the most “freedom”? Perhaps that GLBT’s do what they want to do, and heteros do what they want to do. Do heteros get to tell gays “that’s not marriage”? Do GLBT’s get to tell heteros “my marriage is as ‘legitimate’ as your marriage”? The issue is not just one of behavior, but isn’t it an issue of what is considered to be acceptable thought?

i’m actually content for the next couple of decades with a regime where the feds recognize marriages if they’re valid in the state of domicile, and states don’t have to recognize each other’s marriages. I think that’s the constitutionally correct compromise position.

I am totally content with this as well. It does produce some headaches, but I don’t think the solution to ever problem is an overarching national rule. I think we should learn to accept states being very different from eachother.

If only we could do that, things like Bush or Obama being president wouldn’t drive half the country nuts.

I have to admit, I have a colleague who I realized many months into working with them that they were in a long term relationship… de facto married, but they were trying to keep this hidden. It’s a very unfortunate situation to realize your friend is hiding in shame when they aren’t doing anything but trying to live a happy life. I’ve always been pretty socially conservative and thought marriage is between a man and a woman, but why would I want to contribute to attitudes that probably make others miserable for no tangible benefit?

A little-understood point about the definition of marriage as an arrangement between one man and one woman, and polygamy. It’s often claimed that since most societies have accepted polygamy (and Jews to this day accept it in principle, even if banning it in practice), it can’t be true that marriage has “always” meant one man and one woman. This claim is fallacious. I can speak authoritatively on Jewish law, but I believe this is probably the case in all or almost all polygamous societies: a man can be in multiple marriages at the same time, while a woman cannot, but each marriage is only with one woman. No matter how many wives a man has, his relationship with each one is a separate marriage, unrelated to all the others. Thus the definition given above is correct, and consistent with polygamy.

So, rather than strong arm politicians to end the practice of transferring funds to marrieds in the way of major tax breaks, for home ownership, for having kids, etc. We just turn the culture down a few.

Amsterdam tried the tourist boon of wideopen drug culture but it became a tad lurid. Now they’re floating scumurbs, sealing the diseased in communities, away from the moneyed tourists.

Folk here think there’s no economic cost to Gaia made in man’s image. Like we’ve repealed the laws of genetics, we can change the frame of man.

So went the atrophy of authoritarianism in pursuit of the Communist ideal society.

Viz, SF restrictions on public nudism. The Dark Age is upon us, and we believe ourselves wise.

Tibet has polyandrous marriages. Several men, usually brothers, married to one woman. That’s because they practice infanticide of baby girls, so that men outnumber women.

More likely, I think, because life is so hard that a single man’s economic surplus isn’t enough to support a wife and her children, so several men must band together. And that probably drives the female infanticide, rather than the other way around. But that’s just my guess. In any case, that is a very rare exception.

All the new people, where do they come from? Why shouldn’t there be rewards for people who give up much to form a permanent, monogamous legal tie in which all issue must be acknowledged by the father and supported privately?

Some of my friends and I have discussed how we can sort of “buy sanctification/righteousness” by living in the suburbs or country. Our sinfulness is often exposed in our interactions with others. It is easier to appear to be good if no one gets a close look.
Some time ago I saw part of the documentary on that fellow who lived with the grizzlies (for a time…) It was interesting to see how he appeared so relaxed and at peace for much of the time, but then some fox ran away with his hat and he almost went berserk, you’d have thought he had just suffered the greatest injustice in human existence the way he went after that fox.

a man can be in multiple marriages at the same time, while a woman cannot, but each marriage is only with one woman. No matter how many wives a man has, his relationship with each one is a separate marriage, unrelated to all the others.
That’s interesting, and thanks for offering it. In one way it makes a lot of sense if a culture is more “basic”/”primitive”, where the brute strength of a man is to some degree the first line of protection.

a regime where the feds recognize marriages if they’re valid in the state of domicile, and states don’t have to recognize each other’s marriages. I think that’s the constitutionally correct compromise position.

This is what I was saying back when DOMA was passed. I supported it at the time, given that it was presented as a package, but were I a congressman I would have offered an amendment to sever the two parts, and vote against the federal non-recognition. Note that I believe that if a “married” same-sex couple move from a state where their marriage is recognised to one where it isn’t, the fedgov should stop recognising it too. And vice versa, as appropriate.

No, Dustin, because the purpose of the exercise is to undermine any intermediate institution, that stands between the individual and the government, this is why one sees the hand of Soros behind these campaigns. at least for the last 20 years.

Another linguistic point: people speak loosely of states “banning” same-sex marriage, and compare it to those states that used to ban miscegenation. But to the best of my knowledge there is no state that bans same-sex marriage; rather, most states don’t recognise that there is or can be any such thing. A man who purports to marry another man isn’t breaking any law, any more than is one who purports to marry a rock, or one who purports to pardon criminals (without being the governor). This is very different from the miscegenation laws, which (if I understand correctly) typically did recognise interracial marriages as valid, but banned them. In other words, the Lovings were recognised as a married couple, but they had supposedly committed a crime by doing so. (I know there were cases annulling interracial marriages, but it’s my understanding that these were not typical. Perhaps someone can correct me.)

Incidentally, I believe Loving should have been decided on the much narrower ground that the Full Faith and Credit clause prevented Virginia from criminalising an act that took place in DC, where it was perfectly legal.

Just one way where the Left and Islamofacists are similar, lying for the sake of the cause is permitted and even encouraged-if it will work.

Those two sides deserve each other. I have such disdain for them both, that I’d be thrilled if they somehow annihilated each other, thereby allowing people of common sense — who have a basic understanding of human nature — to live in peace and harmony.

Syphilis can cause infertility in men*, but after-puberty onset of mumps is the most common cause.

*Henry the Eighth is speculated to have had syphilis. Based both on his infertility and seeming mania. I don’t believe it, outside his marriages he was one of England’s best kings. Tight underwear and hot baths?

I suppose one could minimize any legal benefit of marriage other than tax breaks for children- so the government doesn’t have to care for them, and protection of the financial interests of the dependent spouse in the event of divorce.

But along narciso’s point, no tax breaks for children because the government needs the money to run head start and day care and public school from 2 to 18 years to fully indoctrinate for the good of the state, while both parents work to support the state.

In almost any premodern economy, women are less productive than men, both because they’re not as strong and because they have to spend much of their time pregnant, nursing, and looking after children. Generally they run an economic deficit, and thus need a husband to supplement their income and support them. One of the benefits of industrialisation is that there are many ways of earning a living that don’t depend on physical strength, and indeed that play to women’s advantages rather than their disadvantages, and therefore most women are capable of supporting themselves — and even children — without the help of a man. Feminism follows.

It can’t. It’s not capable of doing so. Any bill that purports to do so is by definition null, and a future congress can ignore it.

Tibetans and Chinese are not Neolithic hunter-gatherers.

They don’t need to be. First of all, we’re discussing Tibetans, not Chinese. And Tibetans live in a harsh environment, where making a living is unusually difficult. A man’s economic surplus is very small, and women run an economic deficit (as they do in almost every preindustrial culture).

The lefties are so utterly clueless in their mind-numbing attempts to change nature.
Case in point, China’s aforementioned one child policy, where families prefer boys at the expense of girls. Do they even teach math in China ? How about the birds & the bees ?
Mere replacement of the two parents requires…uh, two children. And if there is a disparate ratio of boys to girls in the next generation, do they not realize the difficulties for producing the following generation ? Who will the boys mate with ?

Similarly, Mark Steyn has made the following point in his 2006 book, America Alone, where he illuminates the declining birth rates of many of the European Statist nations that embrace big government and welfare and pensions. After all, in order for a welfare state to provide welfare, they need workers to not only pay into the system, but to do the heavy lifting for their elderly grandparents fifty years in the future.
And if today’s generation is not breeding, then who do they expect to pay into the welfare state in the future ? And who will care for the elderly fifty years from now ?

There’s an intellectual argument to be made for capitalism, in that capitalism, by definition, is the planning for the future, by virtue of investment, strategic efficiency, the presence of inventories, et al, whereas the welfare state is more focused on self-gratification right now at the expense of literally investing in the future.

One of the benefits of industrialisation is that there are many ways of earning a living that don’t depend on physical strength, and indeed that play to women’s advantages rather than their disadvantages, and therefore most women are capable of supporting themselves — and even children — without the help of a man.

Not really. According to the census 41% of single mothers were on food stamps in 2010.

(Table C8: Poverty Status, Food Stamp Receipt, and Public Assistance for Children Under 18 Years/1 by Selected Characteristics: 2010)

The number of those receiving foodstamps correlates almost exactly to the number of single mothers living at or below the poverty level. And unlike other people, single mothers don’t just experience brief periods of poverty. They spend long periods at or below the poverty level.

It isn’t as if the ones who are eking out a living just above the poverty level are doing well. Many have to work two or three part time jobs to make ends meet because they don’t have the money for childcare (which would be irrelevant if they were in a stable married relationship with typically three times the income) to take work too far away. They’re tied to their childcare arrangements. Oftentimes that means living with other family members, which also conveniently helps to avoid homelessness.

Unless you consider a hand-to-mouth existence which may not necessarily involve public assistance but often turning to food banks or choosing between food or paying the utilities, and no savings for a “rainy day fund” for emergencies or unemployment, as “supporting themselves” then most single mothers really can’t without the help of a man. Or a surrogate like the government or other family members.

But clearly when you’re looking at a segment of the population where you start off with 41% at or below the poverty level (only 8% of married mothers were at or below the poverty level) then that’s tough to do.

I believe when you add up all the single moms who can’t make ends meet without some form of public or private assistance it would be tough to make the case even half are actually getting by on their own.

most women are capable of supporting themselves — and even children — without the help of a man.

Not really. According to the census 41% of single mothers were on food stamps in 2010.

I said “capable”. In most preindustrial societies, the default assumption was that a woman couldn’t produce enough for her own needs, and needed a man to help her. If she couldn’t find a husband then she’d remain a burden on her father and then her brothers. That is not the case in industrial societies.

It can’t. It’s not capable of doing so. Any bill that purports to do so is by definition null, and a future congress can ignore it.

The IPAB is just such an animal. To quote George Will (who was apparently quoting CATO):

By Obamacare’s terms, Congress can repeal IPAB only during a seven-month window in 2017, and then only by three-fifths majorities in both chambers. After that, the law precludes Congress from ever altering IPAB proposals.

Because I don’t see it. Not in this country. And not in most of marriage-optional Europe where the government provides but in greater quantity. Your average Danish single mom may live a much more middle class life than your average American single mom, but it isn’t as if she’s earning it.

The 1990s gave rise to a number of negative trends for single mothers in
Sweden. According to the Swedish Welfare Commission (2002), single
mothers are among the losers in terms of income. While other groups in
general experienced an increase in real income in the 1990s, single mothers’
income dropped. Single mothers consistently experienced a drop in income,
irrespective of age, country of birth and number of children. Only highly
educated single mothers had income trends clearly better than others.
According to the Commission’s report, the poor income trends for single
mothers cannot be explained by changes in the demographic or social
make-up of the group or by changes in transfers. Benefit levels were on average
the same at the end as at the beginning of the decade. Furthermore,
benefits on the whole redistribute income to the advantage of single mothers.
The main explanation to single mothers’ poor situation was that their
income from gainful employment was lower, meaning that it was more
common for single mothers not to have a job at all. Secondly, the labour income
of working single mothers improved only little in the 1990s, largely
because the number of hours worked per week did not increase. Mothers in
two-parent families had considerably higher total number of working hours
per week than did single mothers, and these differences were very small at
the beginning of the decade (the Swedish Welfare Commission 2002).

I don’t see why we as a culture glorify single-motherhood. It’s the rare single mom who can really provide for their child or children.

Do you think the others are capable of doing so and just aren’t acting on that capability?

I won’t speak for the pre-industrial societies but modern non-industrial societies are pretty cut-throat. Anything that makes a woman different can keep her from finding a husband. There are very clear ethnic and racial divisions in Africa, as people such as the Hutus and Tutsis every once in a while remind us by hacking each other apart. In rural Africa not fitting in neatly to the caste system, as it were, will keep a woman from getting married.

Even being too attractive will be enough to deter a man from marrying her. A man is looking for a woman who can help him get by working and having children and won’t cause him too many problems. The life of a rural African man isn’t all beer and skittles, and keeping other men away from his wife is a headache he doesn’t need.

The options available to such a woman are bleak, but it’s wrong to assume her father or brothers will take on the burden. This is true across Asia and South America as well.

My mother was orphaned young. She left school at age nine and went up a mountainside to herd sheep and goats. She wore a shepherd’s cloak made from goats’ hair. Her three sons wore graduation gowns. Lawyer, MBA, opthalmologist.

And she was very beautiful.

She was the youngest of eight children, seven of them daughters. My grandparents did not kill any of them for being girls.

I only understood happiness when my daughter was born.

I cannot understand the Tibetan or Chinese evil, that sacrifices little girls for not being boys.

It can’t. It’s not capable of doing so. Any bill that purports to do so is by definition null, and a future congress can ignore it.

The IPAB is just such an animal

No such animal can exist.

By Obamacare’s terms, Congress can repeal IPAB only during a seven-month window in 2017, and then only by three-fifths majorities in both chambers. After that, the law precludes Congress from ever altering IPAB proposals.

Congress is not ruled by this purported law, it’s ruled by the Constitution, which has no such restriction. It doesn’t matter what this purported law says, any future Congress can do whatever it likes to it.

Congress is not ruled by this purported law, it’s ruled by the Constitution, which has no such restriction. It doesn’t matter what this purported law says, any future Congress can do whatever it likes to it.

The problem is that this law may also be considered a rule – technically these provisions may not be a provision of law, but a rule of each house respectively. I’m not sure.

So you’d have to vote to change the rules of the House or Senate to go against it.

But one Congress can’t bind another. House rules are adopted at the start of a Congress, and usually carried over. After that they are very dfficult to change and usually require the support of the Speaker.

The Senate likes to consider itself a continuing body – it’s a little bit in dispute – and rules changes require a 2/3 vote – although there is always the “nuclear option” of getting a ruling from the Parliamentarian and having a vote – which would itself be decided by majority vote.

Amendments to the filibuster rule are coming out right now – if we go over the fiscal cliff, this would be the first thing dealt with.

They are going to try to get 2/3 anyway, because neither side really wants this question of whether a 2.3 vote is needed or not to change the rules after an election to be settled.

Of course if a change in Senate rules is included in a bill that seems to be another way to change the rules.

And another question is anyway: Can you ever have a rule that certain legislation can’t be proposed?

Do you think the others are capable of doing so and just aren’t acting on that capability?

Naturally. That they don’t is because they don’t have to.

Comment by Milhouse (15b6fd) — 12/11/2012 @ 6:22 am

You would have a hard time coming up with any evidence to support your assertion that this capability for the vast majority of single mother’s to support their children in an industrial society exists.

This chart just shows out of wedlock births. But before the rise of feminism and the modern welfare state the percentage of births out of wedlock was negligible.

It doesn’t show how many women put the children up for adoption or had post-pregnancy shotgun weddings, but it’s a good indicator that before the welfare state the vast majority of women couldn’t raise their children on their own. And knew it.

The evidence is that it was only later that it became an option.

When women had no other option but to demonstrate this capability you say the post-industrial revolution gave them, they didn’t.

Really? How? It’s a clause in a Act, passed by both houses and signed by the president, not an amendment to the rules of each house, passed by that house alone.

House rules are adopted at the start of a Congress, and usually carried over. After that they are very dfficult to change and usually require the support of the Speaker.

Difficult?! On the contrary, it’s the easiest thing in the world, though of course it would have to have the Speaker’s support, just like anything else the House does. Any measure to overturn IPAB or one of its decisions would have to have that support anyway, or it wouldn’t pass the House. So even if this were a rule of the House (which it clearly isn’t), how would that stop the House from breaking it?

The Senate likes to consider itself a continuing body – it’s a little bit in dispute

What dispute? It clearly isn’t.

and rules changes require a 2/3 vote

If that were so, then how could you call this a rule of the senate? It didn’t get anything like a 2/3 vote, after all.

Of course if a change in Senate rules is included in a bill that seems to be another way to change the rules.

Um, excuse me? Now we’re back to your original nonsensical claim; you can’t make it and then use it as proof of something.

And another question is anyway: Can you ever have a rule that certain legislation can’t be proposed?

You would have a hard time coming up with any evidence to support your assertion that this capability for the vast majority of single mother’s to support their children in an industrial society exists.

There are plenty of well-paying jobs that don’t require a man’s physical strength, and indeed many at which women are better than men. That is all I need to support my assertion. A woman is just as capable as a man of sitting in a factory making things on an assembly line, or sitting at a desk pushing paper or bits, which is most of what most people do nowadays.

They surveyed 181 zip codes in the city, and hopefully the *survey* has information.

But all the article says is: 33% of the zip codes ranked among the top 20% of zip codes _within the city_ on more than 1 disease.

Since the articled doesn’t contain a *single comparison* to anything outside of the city, it’s fairly useless as the basis of claims that NY’s incidence of STDs is increasing as a whole — all of the data mentioned in the news report are numbers that signify how one part of the city compares to other parts of the city.

Congress is not ruled by this purported law, it’s ruled by the Constitution, which has no such restriction. It doesn’t matter what this purported law says, any future Congress can do whatever it likes to it.

The article contains a link to the survey. The survey is a *single-time snapshot*, not a comparison between two time periods or some type of longitudinal study … so it can’t demonstrate that rates are soaring, because it only measures rates at one time. The headline is a lie.

Agreed. The headline is a lie, and the survey itself not only says nothing alarming, but by its nature can’t say anything that could be alarming. It says nothing at all about the rate of disease in the city, merely about its distribution within the city. Its purpose, as it says right up top, is as a tool for city health planners to determine which areas need focusing on.

Well, it could be alarming to the people who live in the zip code which ranked in the top 20% for all seven diseases.

Since the definition of a venereal disease is that it’s not very contagious, that it’s in fact so difficult to catch that one needs to get up close and personal to manage it, I don’t see why it would be alarming even to them. Knowing the actual rates of infection in each area might be somewhat useful when screening potential sexual partners, but not very.

That last point brings up an interesting question to me, which is to what degree sexual partner selection is zip-code bounded. My social circle in the city connects people from widely different zip codes and all five boroughs, but (as an immigrant) I may be unusual.